HOWARD R. TALLMAN, Chief Judge.
This case comes before the Court on Debtors' Chapter 13 Plan (docket #2) (the "Plan"). The case presents the issue of whether the Court may deny confirmation of the Debtors' chapter 13 plan on account of their failure to propose a plan in accordance with the district's Local Rules. More specifically, the question before the Court is whether a debtor's plan is confirmable if it disregards Local Bankruptcy Rule 3015-1(b)(1) and strikes Section VIII of Local Bankruptcy Form 3015-1.1, which requires debtors to modify their plan post-confirmation to provide for timely filed priority and secured claims that were not filed or litigated at the time of plan confirmation. The Court must address the Debtors' claim that the Court has exceeded its rule-making authority and, as part of that analysis, the Court must also examine whether the Debtor's plan complies with the requirements of the Bankruptcy Code and applicable procedural rules.
At the initial confirmation hearing held on March 17, 2011, the Court discussed with Debtors' counsel the fact that Debtors' Plan is not in compliance with this district's Local Bankruptcy Rules ("L.B.R." or "Local Rules"). The Debtor's Plan marks Section VIII of the district's form Chapter 13 Plan ("Form Plan")
To examine this question and more fully evaluate the Debtors' position, the Court scheduled a confirmation hearing for June 16, 2011. The Court gave the Debtors an opportunity to file a brief and to present oral argument.
Debtors make a number of arguments in support of their position that they may disregard the Court's L.B.R. 3015-1(b)(1):
Debtors object specifically to Section VIII of the Form Plan. That section commits a debtor to modify a confirmed plan if
Section 1329 is the section of the Bankruptcy Code that provides for modification of a confirmed chapter 13 bankruptcy plan. Debtors argue that § 1329(a) allows only the debtor, the trustee or an unsecured creditor—but not the Court—to seek modification of a confirmed chapter 13 plan. Therefore, the Form Plan violates § 1329(a) because it is tantamount to the Court moving for a post-confirmation modification of the Debtors' confirmed plan.
Debtors argue that the binding effect of a confirmed chapter 13 plan under § 1327(a) overrides the claim filing, objection and allowance process set out in §§ 501 and 502 and in the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.
The claim allowance and plan confirmation processes in chapter 13 practice implicate a number of different Bankruptcy Code sections and provisions of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the "Rules"):
Section VIII of the district's Form Plan is the language the Debtors find objectionable. It states as follows:
As will be discussed in more detail, Section VIII gives effect to the time frames set out in Rule 3002(c) for the timely filing of proofs of claim; it gives effect to the presumption of validity accorded to timely filed claims by § 502; and it gives effect to the Bankruptcy Code's allocation of the burden of objecting to a timely filed and presumptively valid claim. It also serves the purpose of insuring that the secured claims of home mortgage creditors are not impermissibly modified in contravention of § 1322(b)(2) and that the cure amounts in the plan are in compliance with § 1322(e).
Debtor's position is based upon arguing that Congress has created irreconcilable
It is this Court's duty to construe different provisions of the Bankruptcy Code in harmony with one another and not in contradiction. It is a "basic canon of statutory construction that different provisions of the same statute normally should be construed consistently with one another."
The issue currently before the Court was brought to light by the amendments to the Bankruptcy Code contained in BAPCPA. But the issue was not created by BAPCPA. Prior to its enactment, a plan could be confirmed prior to the proof of claim deadlines. In this district, and perhaps in others, that simply happened infrequently because BAPCPA added a provision to the Bankruptcy Code that dictates a court may hold a confirmation hearing no earlier than 20 days after the § 341 creditors meeting but no later than 45 days after the creditors meeting.
The Court finds no irreconcilable contradiction between a speedy chapter 13 plan confirmation and the claim allowance process set out in §§ 501 and 502. Nothing in chapter 13 prevents the Court from confirming a chapter 13 in accordance with the accelerated time frame that was part of the BAPCPA amendments without cutting off a creditor's right to receive payment based on a timely filed and allowed proof of claim.
Debtors argue that the Court has exceeded its rule-making authority in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 2071 and FED. R. BANKR.P. 9029. Section VIII of the Form Plan commits a debtor to modify a confirmed plan if necessary to make payment under the plan consistent with timely filed allowed claims that are filed after confirmation of the debtor's plan. Debtors argue that Section VIII violates substantive rights granted to them by statute and exceeds this Court's rule-making authority. They point to the language of § 1329,
This Court must respectfully disagree. It is incumbent upon bankruptcy courts to avoid confirming chapter 13 plans that do not comply with the Bankruptcy Code. Absent a debtor's Section VIII commitment to conform plan treatment to allowed claims following the bar date, the Court will confirm plans that, by way of example, impermissibly modify the rights of mortgage creditors in violation of § 1322(b)(2) because those creditors are not required to file their claims prior to plan confirmation. Mortgage creditors will frequently be subjected to confirmed plans that unilaterally and summarily modify their rights absent debtors' commitment to modify their plans to conform to the secured creditors' timely filed claims. Such confirmations constitute legal error.
Bankruptcy courts are circumspect in exercising powers under § 105(a). "[T]he powers granted by [§ 105(a)] may be exercised only in a manner consistent with the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. That statute does not authorize the
In this case, it is the second sentence of § 105(a) that is applicable. That sentence is narrowly focused and sets forth a rule of construction concerning those Bankruptcy Code sections, similar to § 1329, that provide "for the raising of an issue by a party in interest...."
Section VIII is intended to prevent the use of a chapter 13 plan to accomplish ends that are specifically prohibited under the Bankruptcy Code. Such use of the chapter 13 process and of this Court is an abuse of process.
Thus, even if the Court accepted the Debtors' premise that Section VIII is tantamount to the Court moving for a plan modification under § 1329, the Court may surely do so when to refrain from so acting would be to sanction a misuse of the Bankruptcy Code. But the Court does not accept the Debtors' premise.
In addition to dictating the standards applicable to plan modifications, § 1329 controls who may initiate the judicial process to modify the debtor's plan. Rule-making, however, "is nonjudicial in the sense that rules impose standards of general application divorced from the individual fact situation which ordinarily forms the predicate for judicial action."
The district's bankruptcy judges promulgated the Form Plan, including Section
The Court's rule-making authority allows it to regulate the practice and procedure before the Court. The Debtors argue that the Court has gone beyond the regulation of practice and procedure and has affected their substantive rights. A procedural rule is "designed to make the process of litigation a fair and efficient mechanism for the resolution of disputes."
An area of law where the distinction between the procedural and the substantive is well developed involves application of the Erie doctrine. Under Erie R.R. v. Tompkins
In the case of Hanna v. Plumer
The Supreme Court reversed.
Similarly, the Local Rules' requirement to use the Form Plan with Section VIII hardly affects the Court's decision on the merits of a claim dispute. The substantive rules of decision, under the Bankruptcy Code, that guide the Court in its determination of the validity and amount of a creditor's claim are wholly unaffected. The effect of the rules requiring debtors to use the district's Form Plan, containing the Section VIII language, is to require a debtor to either prevail on a substantive objection to the creditor's claim or to conform the plan to timely filed and allowed proofs of claim. Far from altering the substantive law, Section VIII gives effect to the substantive law appearing in §§ 501 and 502. It does so consistent with the Rules by giving full effect to the Rule 3002's time frames without offending the requirements under §§ 1322 and 1325 for proposing and confirming a chapter 13 plan. Contrary to Debtors' argument, Section VIII facilitates the debtors' and the creditors' ability to have chapter 13 plans timely confirmed and provide for the proper claim amounts. The Court's obligation to read different sections of the
It is the Debtors' position that Section VIII violates the principle of res judicata and compromises the finality of a chapter 13 plan confirmation. The short answer is that it is the contents of a confirmed plan that is binding on the Debtors and their creditors under § 1327. Where the plan commits the Debtors to reconcile their plan with the actual allowed claims following the lapse of the claim filing deadlines, that obligation is made binding by the confirmation order. In reality, here the Debtors' seek to avoid the res judicata effect of a plan that commits them to harmonize their payments under their plan to timely filed and allowed proofs of claim.
Moreover, by not giving full effect to the Bankruptcy Code's claims allowance process, the Court incurs a heightened risk— indeed the virtual certainty—that it will confirm plans that do not comply with other provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. That issue brings into focus the much discussed Tenth Circuit case of Andersen v. UNIPAC-NEBHELP (In re Andersen)
The cases are similar. They both arise in the context of chapter 13 plans. In both cases, the debtors proposed plans that affected their student loan indebtedness. In Andersen, the debtor treated the student loan debt as a general unsecured debt and included language to the effect that confirmation of the plan would constitute a finding of undue hardship under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8) and render the indebtedness dischargeable.
The plans in both Andersen and Espinosa were confirmed and both debtors completed payments under the plans and received discharges. The affected creditors in both cases sought to collect their debts following completion of the debtors' plans. The procedural routes to ultimate review differed somewhat but the courts in both cases—the Tenth Circuit in Andersen and the Supreme Court in Espinosa—found that confirmation of each plan was res judicata and the student loan debt was discharged notwithstanding that, under § 523(a)(8), education loan indebtedness may not be discharged without filing an adversary action seeking a determination of undue hardship. In the Supreme Court's Espinosa opinion, it abrogated the Tenth Circuit's holding in In re Mersmann,
In light of the heavy volume of chapter 13 bankruptcy cases around the country,
Where the Debtor's statement of the arrearage amount, which appears in his initial chapter 13 plan, differs from the mortgage creditor's arrearage claim, the effect of Section VIII is that the Debtor must conform his plan to the creditor's amount or demonstrate that his figure is correct by prosecuting a claim objection. If the Court were to allow debtors to nullify the Section VIII language, it would do so knowing that it will inevitably confirm plans that violate § 1322(b)(2). Whenever a timely mortgage claim is filed following plan confirmation—an event that can routinely occur—and the arrearage amount in the claim is greater than the plan's arrearage figure, § 1322(b)(2) has been violated. But, in Espinosa, the Supreme Court cautions that bankruptcy judges are required to correct defects in a debtor's plan. Without the ability, through its rule-making authority, to require the plan proponent to reconcile his plan with the timely filed allowed mortgage claim, a court must content itself with cleaning up the mess after the inevitable improper confirmation has occurred.
The many judicial decisions that recognize the res judicata effect of a confirmed
The frequency with which those issues arise in the case law suggests the efficacy of using local rules and procedures that seek to keep the Court from finding itself in the position of being required to uphold its erroneous confirmation of plans containing terms that are contrary to the Bankruptcy Code. It is through use of the Form Plan containing Section VIII that the Court seeks to avoid post-confirmation disputes such as those that arose in Espinosa and Andersen.
To the extent that Debtors suggest they seek to restore the district's procedures to a purer form of the res judicata doctrine by fixing all claim amounts at confirmation, the Court will restate the obvious. It is the terms of the confirmed plan that are binding upon the parties. The terms of the Form Plan have the effect of requiring a debtor to substantiate his version of a claim by prosecuting an objection to a timely filed and allowed claim where the proof of claim differs from the plan term; to conform the plan to the proof of claim; or to negotiate a resolution satisfactory to both parties. That is the obligation that is binding upon debtors by operation of res judicata and § 1327 under the current Form Plan.
The deadline for a mortgage creditor to file its proof of claim is "90 days after the first date set for the meeting of creditors called under § 341(a) of the Bankruptcy Code...."
Where the proof of claim, which may be timely filed after plan confirmation,
Debtors would address this concern by establishing the rule that a creditor whose claim is incorrectly listed in the Debtor's plan must object to plan confirmation or be prohibited from asserting a right to payment of its true claim even if the claim was timely filed. Debtors would thus abrogate the claim filing, objection and allowance process set out in §§ 501 and 502 of the Bankruptcy Code and Rule 3001 et seq. They would have the Court cut off the time frames for filing proofs of claim set out in the Rules and noticed out to creditors in the Court's Notice of Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Case, Meeting of Creditors, & Deadlines, and Notice of Hearing on Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan, which the Court issues upon the commencement of a chapter 13 case. Finally, they seek to reverse the allocation of burdens set out in the Bankruptcy Code and the Rules as between debtors and claimants. The Court finds nothing in § 1327's provisions concerning the res judicata effect of plan confirmation that should mandate such a result.
Initially, the Court will observe that it routinely confirms chapter 11 plans where the debtor-in-possession carries on the process of objecting to proofs of claim following plan confirmation. Section 1141 is similar to § 1327. It provides that "the provisions of a confirmed plan bind the debtor, ... any entity acquiring property under the plan, and any creditor, ...
Under § 501, a creditor may file a proof of claim. Under § 502, the creditor's claim is "deemed allowed, unless a party in interest ... objects."
The Debtors' notion that the Bankruptcy Code's claims process should be cut off by chapter 13 plan confirmation turns the claim allowance process on its head.
Debtors' Plan cuts off the time for filing claims contained in Rule 3002(c) and noticed out to creditors by the Court. Upon the filing of a chapter 13 case, the Clerk of the Bankruptcy Court issues the Notice of Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Case, Meeting of Creditors, & Deadlines, and Notice of Hearing on Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan. The deadlines for creditors to file proofs of claim are among the deadlines contained in that notice and those deadlines are based on Rule 3002(c). It would be disingenuous and misleading of the Court to mail such a notice to all creditors with certain knowledge that the claim filing time-frames will be cut short by plan confirmation. Moreover, those deadlines are considered so important that they are among the deadlines that a court is prohibited from reducing under Rule 9006(c)(2). A plan that cuts those deadlines short renders Rule 3002(c) and the Court's notice based on that rule meaningless. It allows a debtor to reduce the very same proof of claim deadlines that a court is prohibited from reducing under Rule 9006(c)(2).
Manifestly, under the Bankruptcy Code and the Rules, it is the burden of a debtor (or other party in interest) to object to a proof of claim filed by a creditor or interest holder.
A consequence of the burden shift advocated by the Debtors is that it obliges the creditor to engage counsel to do nothing more than assert its claim. Because a corporate entity may not file pleadings and appear in a case without the benefit of counsel,
The Court concludes that it cannot confirm any plan containing language that summarily and unilaterally purports to cut short any creditor's right to timely file a proof of claim under § 501 and Rules 3001 and 3002; that purports to deny a claimant Rule 3001(f)'s evidentiary effect of prima facie validity; and that purports to deny a claimant § 502's provision that a claim that is filed in accordance with the Bankruptcy Code is deemed allowed unless objected to.
Even if the Court believed that it has the authority to truncate the time periods for filing proofs of claim granted to creditors by the Bankruptcy Rules, the practical effect of such a local practice could not be what was envisioned by the drafters of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. Against the backdrop of BAPCPA and in the process of making extensive changes to the Rules required by BAPCPA, it appears to have been the judgment of Congress
Certainly, where the debtor's proposed treatment of the creditor's claim is not to its liking, the creditor must object or risk being bound by the plan's provisions. But it should not be required to file an objection going to those aspects of its claim that are deemed allowed under § 502(a) upon the timely filing of its proof of claim—"the validity and amount of the claim."
As the Court notes above, the Debtors' plan is unconfirmable on its face due to its noncompliance with the Local Rules. The Court gave Debtors an opportunity to present argument why their Plan may be confirmed, notwithstanding the Debtors' non-compliance with the Section VIII language in the Form Plan. In their brief, Debtors also discuss additional language that they have added in Section V.G. of the Form Plan.
Section V of the Form Plan is labeled as "Other Provisions." It is the section in which debtors are allowed to set out additional provisions including payments to be made directly to creditors; the plan effective date; the order of distribution; motions to avoid liens under § 522(f); student loan obligations and restitution obligations. Section V.G. allows the debtor to list "Other" provisions. As the Debtors point out, they have inserted language in Section V.G. that is directly contradictory of the Section VIII obligation to conform their plan to the allowed proofs of claim. The Court agrees with the Debtors that it cannot consider the Debtors' alteration to the Form Plan in Section VIII without also considering the language the Debtors have inserted into Section V.G.
Specifically, Section V.G.3. of Debtor's Plan includes the following language:
Debtors' Chapter 13 Plan, Section V.G.3. (docket # 2).
By insertion of this language, Debtors seek to nullify the operation of § 502(a), which provides that a timely filed claim is deemed allowed in the absence of an objection from a party in interest; and to avoid § 1322(b)'s prohibition against modifying their home mortgage in the event that their estimate of the mortgage arrears turns out to be less than the figure reflected on the creditors allowed claim.
Debtors cite the Northern District of Texas as a jurisdiction that requires debtors to object to proofs of claim. That district's General Order 2010-01, ¶ 8.d. provides that "Unless an objection is timely filed as to the amount or classification of any claim ... the claim ... will be allowed or approved as described in the [Trustee's Recommendation Concerning Claims], and such amount and classification will be final and binding on all parties without further order of the Court." Debtors suggest that the Northern District of Texas is an outlier in its procedures and that "such a local bankruptcy rule as it exists in Texas runs afoul of the intent of 1327, as it gives little meaning to a confirmed plan being a final order." But the reality is contrary to the Debtors' suggestion. Rules seeking to give full meaning to both § 1327 and the claims allowance process set out in the Bankruptcy Code and the Rules place the Northern District of Texas squarely within
In order to place this issue, as it has arisen in this district, into a proper context, the Court undertook to examine the local rules and chapter 13 plan forms from other districts. It was a useful exercise.
By the Court's count, 59 of the 93 judicial districts have a positive indication in local rules or in local chapter 13 plan forms directing that distributions to creditors are made based on amounts appearing in allowed proofs of claim. By contrast, the Court has identified 5 judicial districts where the plan form or rules contain a positive indication that claim amounts appearing in the confirmed plan will determine amounts of distributions instead of the proof of claim. The Court assigned no classification to the remaining 29 judicial districts. Of those 29 districts, 25 districts simply have no local rule that addresses the issue and no form plan that would allow the Court to assign a classification with any degree of confidence. A few districts have plan language that the Court found ambiguous and the Court declined to assign any classification on that basis.
Some published cases have identified three approaches to the perceived conflict between the § 1327 binding effect of plan confirmation and the § 502 allowance of claims.
In the Court's experience, there seems to be no area of bankruptcy law practice that is more localized than chapter 13 practice. Despite that fact, other judicial districts around the country are remarkably uniform in giving full recognition to the process set up in the Bankruptcy Code and the Rules for filing and allowing claims notwithstanding that chapter 13 plans are frequently confirmed prior to the expiration of the claim deadlines. In an Appendix to this Order, the Court has listed the various jurisdictions the Court examined and the basis for the Court's classification.
The narrow issue before the Court is whether the Court may deny confirmation of the Debtors' chapter 13 plan on account of their failure to propose a plan in accordance with the district's Local Rules and Form Plan. The Court concludes that it may deny confirmation of such a plan. The Court rejects the Debtor's argument that Section VIII of the Court's Form Plan exceeds the Court's rule-making authority because it is contrary to the Bankruptcy Code. The Court's L.B.R. 3015-1 and L.B.Form 3015-1.1 fall well within the Court's authority to establish rules regulating the practice and procedure before the Court. Use of the prescribed procedures and forms for chapter 13 plans deprive no debtor of rights granted by the Bankruptcy Code nor do the Court's Local
Whether or not a given district may choose to promulgate rules that conflate plan confirmation and claim allowance is a matter beyond the issue presented by this case. The foregoing discussion makes clear the Court's view that the accelerated confirmation timetable under BAPCPA is easily balanced with the provisions appearing in the Bankruptcy Code and the Rules for claim allowance. It seems far more plausible to the Court that the drafters of the Bankruptcy Code and of the Rules were well aware of the time-frames applicable to both processes and saw no conflict rather than that they chose to ignore a glaring conflict and leave it to the courts— through case law or local practice—to elevate one process over the other.
Debtors express their concerns in terms of finality. They want the confirmation order to fully and finally determine all issues in the case. But the Court believes the contrary result is the likely consequence of confirming a plan with no requirement to harmonize payments under the plan with allowed claims. Domestic support obligation ("DSO") claims are nondischargeable. Does confirmation of a plan that does not provide the full amount of the DSO claim help the Debtor obtain a fresh start? Does confirmation of a plan that does not pay the full amount of the priority tax claims operate to settle those claims or merely mean that the Debtor will emerge from chapter 13 owing nondischargeable tax debts? Won't funds that could have been used to pay nondischargeable priority claims be used to over-pay unsecured claims instead? Long term debts are not subject to a chapter 13 discharge. What does a debtor really gain by obtaining confirmation of a plan that pays less than the full amount of a mortgage arrearage? By what mechanism is the remaining arrearage discharged? The type of finality the Debtors seek seems far from final. It is more like a prescription for continuing litigation in place of a fresh start at plan completion.
The Form Plan is imperfect. The modification requirement appearing in Section VIII is one way of harmonizing BAPCPA's accelerated confirmation time-frame with the Bankruptcy Code provisions and Rules relating to allowance of claims. However, Section VIII is not the exclusive method of harmonizing those provisions and it may not be the best.
Experience has highlighted another problem with the Form Plan. Section V.G. of the Form Plan was intended to provide a measure of flexibility in those rare cases where a particular debtor's unique circumstances cannot be adequately provided for by the standard terms reflected in the Form Plan. But here, the Debtors' Section V.G. covers fully two and one-half single spaced pages of the Debtors' nine page Plan. In essence, Debtors' counsel has taken it upon itself to rewrite the Court's Form Plan without taking the time and the trouble to participate in the rule-making
These are issues that are likely to engage the attention of the bankruptcy judges of the district in the near future.
Finally, the Court will voice its support for the Judicial Conference efforts to craft a uniform national chapter 13 plan. The high volume of chapter 13 cases coupled with the high degree of similarity in the issues that are presented in these consumer cases lends itself to a uniform treatment. The nature of consumer credit means that the majority of creditors appearing in chapter 13 cases are institutional creditors with national operations. Such creditors receive plans proposed by debtors from all over the country that vary substantially from district to district in format, language and emphasis. Chapter 13 is not merely a scaled down chapter 11 reorganization. The difference between business debtors and consumer debtors is fundamental. To employ plans that run to a dozen pages and allow debtors unlimited latitude to customize provisions adds complexity, with the attendant cost such complexity entails, to no useful purpose. A streamlined and uniform national form chapter 13 plan would likely benefit debtors, creditors, trustees and certainly the courts.
In accordance with the foregoing discussion, it is
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State or
Circuit Territory District
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Maine Local Rule 3015-3(d)(3) & Local Form 2, § 3(D)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Massachusetts Local Rule Appendix 1, Chapter 13 Rule 13-13(e) &
(f)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 New Hampshire Model Chapter 13 Plan, paragraph 11.B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Puerto Rico Not addressed in rules; no local plan form
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Rhode Island Chapter 13 Plan and Applicable Motions, section II
I.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Connecticut Not addressed in rules; no form chapter 13 plan
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 New York Eastern Not addressed in rules; no chapter 13 plan form
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 New York Northern LBR 3015-1(h)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 New York Southern Model Chapter 13 Plan, category 2 (mortgage claims)
& category 5 (priority)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 New York Western Model Plan (Rochester Division) plan controls
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Vermont Local Rule 3013-2. Classification of Claims & Interest—
Chapter 13
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Virgin Islands Bankr. Local Bankruptcy Rule 3015-2.B. Plan classification Div. and amount control only if no timely POC. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 Delaware Appears the plan controls the amount of the claim to b e paid --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 New Jersey Unclear. Plan references to allowed claims suggest that distributions made in accordance with proof of claim --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 Pennsylvania Eastern Not addressed in rules; no local plan form --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 Pennsylvania Middle Chapter 13 Model Plan, § 2.C. & § 3.A. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 Pennsylvania Western Local Form Plan, General Principles Applicable to All Chapter 13 Plans --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 District of Chapter 13 Plan form—no claim amounts listed in Columbia plan --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 Maryland Model chapter 13 plan, § 2.a.; § 2.d.; § 2.e.ii. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 North Carolina Eastern Model Plan paragraph 5 (mortgage arrears); otherwise plan controls --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 North Carolina Middle Not addressed in rules; no chapter 13 plan form --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 North Carolina Western Not addressed in rules or plan form --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 South Carolina Chapter 13 Plan form provides that secured and priority creditors paid according to claims --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 Virginia Eastern Chapter 13 plan form provides for payment of "allowed claims" and debtor only enters "estimated" amounts --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 Virginia Western Chapter 13 plan form provides for payment of "allowed claims" and debtor only enters "estimated" amounts --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 West Virginia Northern Local Form Proposed Plan and Notice to Creditors; Trustee will pay allowed claims; plan reflects estimates only --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 West Virginia Southern Local Form E-2 Proposed Chapter 13 Plan; payments made on allowed claims; plan reflects estimates only --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 Louisiana Eastern LBR 2083-1 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 Louisiana Middle Not addressed in rules or plan form --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 Louisiana Western Not addressed in rules/no form chapter 13 plan --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 Mississippi Northern Not addressed in rules; no chapter 13 plan form --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 Mississippi Southern Not addressed in rules; no chapter 13 plan form --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 Texas Eastern Local Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3015(g). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 Texas Northern General Order 2010-01, ¶ 8.d. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 Texas Southern Local Rule 3015-1(a)(4) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 Texas Western Midland-Odessa Division, Standing Order for Chapte r 13 Case Administration for the Midland Odessa Division, ¶ 3 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 Texas Western San Antonio Division, Amended Standing Order Relating to Chapter 13 Practices in the San Antonio Division, ¶ 10. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 Texas Western Austin Division, Standing Order for Chapter 13 Case Administration for Austin Division, ¶ 3 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6 Kentucky Eastern Model chapter 13 plan refers to estimated claim amounts --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6 Kentucky Western Not addressed in rules/no form chapter 13 plan --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6 Michigan Eastern Form Order Confirming Plan; In re Senczyszyn, 426 B.R. 250, 253-54 (Bankr.E.D.Mich.2010)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6 Michigan Western Not addressed in rules; no chapter 13 plan form --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6 Ohio Northern Canton Division—Administrative order 05-05 and Form Plan paragraphs 4, 5 & 8 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6 Ohio Northern Cleveland Division—Form Plan paragraph 2.C. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6 Ohio Southern Mandatory Form Plan refers to estimated claim and arrearage amounts --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6 Tennessee Eastern Not addressed in rules or plan form --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6 Tennessee Middle Model Plan form specifies "Scheduled Amt." for claim amounts and specifies that the plan does not allow claims. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6 Tennessee Western Local Form 2, Chapter 13 Plan, specifies "Approx arrearage" in mortgage section --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7 Illinois Central No local rules and no local chapter 13 form plan --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7 Illinois Northern Model plan provides that plan controls over proofs of claim --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7 Illinois Southern Model chapter 13 plan refers to estimated claim amounts --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7 Indiana Northern Not addressed in local rules; no form chapter 1 3 plan --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7 Indiana Southern Model chapter 13 plan, paragraph (b) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7 Wisconsin Eastern Chapter 13 Plan provides trustee will pay allowed claims and plan reflects estimates of arrearage and priority claims --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7 Wisconsin Western Chapter 13 Plan provides trustee will pay allowed claims and plan reflects estimates of arrearage and priority claims --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8 Arkansas Eastern Not addressed in rules; no local form plan --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8 Arkansas Western Not addressed in rules; no local form plan --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8 Iowa Northern Not addressed in rules; no local form plan --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8 Iowa Southern No local rules; no local chapter 13 form plan --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8 Minnesota Model chapter 13 plan (specifies that POC controls on arrearage amounts and priority claims) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8 Missouri Eastern Local Rule 3015-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8 Missouri Western Local Rule 3084-1 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8 Nebraska Local Rule 3007-1 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8 North Dakota Not addressed in rules; no local forms --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8 South Dakota Not addressed in rules or plan form --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 Alaska Chapter 13 Plan form; Local Rule 3015-1(b)(4)[B] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 Arizona Chapter 13 Plan and Application for Payment of Administrative Expenses, ¶ (C)(4); ¶ (C)(6)(a); ¶ (C)(6)(b) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 California Central Local Rule 3015-1(j)(2) and Mandatory Chapter 13 Plan form --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 California Northern Oakland Division: Model Chapter 13 Plan for bankruptcy cases filed on or after October 17, 2005, ¶ 2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 California Northern San Francisco Division: Not addressed in rules or plan. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 California Northern Santa Rosa Division: Not addressed in rules or plan. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 California Northern San Jose Division: Pre-approved Chapter 13 Plan forms, ¶ 2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 California Southern Local Rule 3007-1 & 3013-1 and Form Chapter 13 Plan ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9 Guam Bankr. Not addressed in rules/no form chapter 13 plan Div. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 Hawaii Local Rule 3070-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 Idaho Chapter 13 Plan form provides that allowed claim controls but provides opportunity for modification --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 Montana LBR 3001-4 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 Nevada Model Chapter 13 Plan, paragraph 2.06 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 Northern Bankr. Not addressed in rules; no form plan Mariana Islands Div. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 Oregon Model Plan form 1300.05 refers to estimated debt and arrearage --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 Washington Eastern Local Form LF2083 Chapter 13 Plan. states that trustee will pay according to amt. stated on POC. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 Washington Western Chapter 13 Plan form specifies that priority and secured claims to be paid only to filed and allowed claims --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10 Colorado Chapter 13 Plan form—plan modification provision --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10 Kansas Chapter 13 Model Plan, ¶ 7; ¶ 9.b.iii.; ¶ 9.c.ii.A) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10 New Mexico Chapter 13 Plan form, Local Rule 3070-1.1, Local Rule 3070-1.2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10 Oklahoma Eastern Local Form 3015-1(B) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10 Oklahoma Northern Not addressed in rules; local form not available on-line. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10 Oklahoma Western Order Confirming Chapter 13 Plan, paragraph 2. c. & e. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10 Utah Local Rules Appendix G --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10 Wyoming Chapter 13 Plan form provides that plan controls over proofs of claim --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11 Alabama Middle Local Rule 3015-4 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11 Alabama Northern Not addressed in local rules or plan form --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11 Alabama Southern Form Chapter 13 Plan directs trustee to pay "allowed claims for arrearages;" plan does not specify amount. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11 Florida Middle No chapter 13 rule; no form chapter 13 plan --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11 Florida Northern Form Chapter 13 Plan provides that payment of arrearages under plan constitute full payment --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11 Florida Southern Local Rule 2083-1 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11 Georgia Middle Not addressed in rules/no form chapter 13 plan --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11 Georgia Northern Chapter 13 Plan form paragraph 3 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11 Georgia Southern Chapter 13 Plan form; amounts are estimates ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2) (emphasis added).
